MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396514595 · doi:10.2196/53441

Precision Assessment of Real-World Associations Between Stress and Sleep Duration Using Actigraphy Data Collected Continuously for an Academic Year: Individual-Level Modeling Study

2024· article· en· W4396514595 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Constanza M. Vidal Bustamante, Garth Coombs, Habiballah Rahimi-Eichi, Patrick Mair, Jukka‐Pekka Onnela, Justin T. Baker, Randy L. Buckner

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsActigraphyPsychologyCovariateClinical psychologyMedicineDemographyPhysical therapyStatisticsInsomniaPsychiatryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heightened stress and insufficient sleep are common in the transition to college, often co-occur, and have both been linked to negative health outcomes. A challenge concerns disentangling whether perceived stress precedes or succeeds changes in sleep. These day-to-day associations may vary across individuals, but short study periods and group-level analyses in prior research may have obscured person-specific phenotypes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to obtain stable estimates of lead-lag associations between perceived stress and objective sleep duration in the individual, unbiased by the group, by developing an individual-level linear model that can leverage intensive longitudinal data while remaining parsimonious. METHODS: In total, 55 college students (n=6, 11% second-year students and n=49, 89% first-year students) volunteered to provide daily self-reports of perceived stress via a smartphone app and wore an actigraphy wristband for the estimation of daily sleep duration continuously throughout the academic year (median usable daily observations per participant: 178, IQR 65.5). The individual-level linear model, developed in a Bayesian framework, included the predictor and outcome of interest and a covariate for the day of the week to account for weekly patterns. We validated the model on the cohort of second-year students (n=6, used as a pilot sample) by applying it to variables expected to correlate positively within individuals: objective sleep duration and self-reported sleep quality. The model was then applied to the fully independent target sample of first-year students (n=49) for the examination of bidirectional associations between daily stress levels and sleep duration. RESULTS: Proof-of-concept analyses captured expected associations between objective sleep duration and subjective sleep quality in every pilot participant. Target analyses revealed negative associations between sleep duration and perceived stress in most of the participants (45/49, 92%), but their temporal association varied. Of the 49 participants, 19 (39%) showed a significant association (probability of direction>0.975): 8 (16%) showed elevated stress in the day associated with shorter sleep later that night, 5 (10%) showed shorter sleep associated with elevated stress the next day, and 6 (12%) showed both directions of association. Of note, when analyzed using a group-based multilevel model, individual estimates were systematically attenuated, and some even reversed sign. CONCLUSIONS: The dynamic interplay of stress and sleep in daily life is likely person specific. Paired with intensive longitudinal data, our individual-level linear model provides a precision framework for the estimation of stable real-world behavioral and psychological dynamics and may support the personalized prioritization of intervention targets for health and well-being.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.298
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→